Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

JUNE 10 (legislative day, MAY 28), 1940.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. CHANDLER (for Mr. MCCARRAN), from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R, 8399]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8399) to prohibit the receipt, possession, or disposition of money or property feloniously taken from a bank organized or operating under the laws of the United States or any member of the Federal Reserve System, after consideration, report the same favorably to the Senate with the recommendation that it do pass.

The act of May 18, 1934, made it a crime to feloniously (a) take or attempt to take property, or (b) to assault persons in such attempt from any bank a member of the Federal Reserve System or organized or operating under the laws of the United States.

This bill would add another subsection to further make it a crime, with less severe penalties (maximum $5,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment, or both) to willfully become a receiver or possessor of property taken in violation of the statute.

Following is a letter of the Attorney General recommending the enactment of this legislation:

Hon. HENRY F. ASHURST,

FEBRUARY 1, 1940.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR: Under existing law, it is a separate substantive offense knowingly to receive or possess stolen property transported in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of the National Stolen Property Act (U. S. C., title 18, sec. 416). Existing law likewise makes it an offense knowingly to receive, possess, or dispose of money or property paid as ransom in violation of the Federal Kidnaping Act (U. S. Č., title 18, sec. 408c-1).

On the other hand, the Federal bank robbery statute is not implemented in this manner. The statute does not make it a separate substantive offense knowingly to receive or possess property stolen from a bank in violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act (U. S. C., title 12, sec. 588a-d).

Accordingly, I enclose herewith a proposed bill making it an offense to receive, possess, conceal, barter, sell, or dispose of any money or property knowing that the same has been feloniously taken from a bank in violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act.

I am informed by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that the proposed legislation is in accord with the program of the President.

With kind regards,
Sincerely,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

76TH CONGRESS 3d Session

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 1802

OPERATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CERTAIN CASES

JUNE 10 (legislative day, MAY 28), 1940.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 4828]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4828) to amend the law limiting the operation of statutes of limitations in certain cases, after consideration and amendment thereof, report the same to the Senate with the recommendation that, as amended, it do pass.

This bill has been recommended by the Attorney General, in the following letter:

Hon. HENRY F. ASHURST,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate.

MARCH 1, 1939.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I desire to call your attention to a needed amendment to the statute permitting reindictments after an indictment is found defective.

Section 1 of the act of May 10, 1934 (48 Stat. 772; U. S. C., title 18, sec. 587), provides: "That whenever an indictment is found defective or insufficient for any cause, after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned at any time during the next succeeding term of court following such finding, during which a grand jury thereof shall be in session."

The purpose of the legislation was to permit a defendant to be reindicted, if the original indictment was found defective, even after the statute of limitations had run. In order to preclude undue delay, it was intended that the new indictment should be found not later than at the term next succeeding that at which the original indictment was held insufficient.

The Supreme Court held, however, in United States v. Durkee Famous Foods, Inc., decided on January 30, 1939, that the statute should be literally construed and that, therefore, the new indictment may be found only at the term following that at which the original indictment was held defective, and not at the same term. This result which was obviously unintended and which is due solely to the phraseology of the statute requires rectification.

I, therefore, recommend that section 1 of the act of May 10, 1934, be amended by striking out the words "at any time during the next succeeding term of court following such finding" and substituting therefor the words "not later than the

end of the next succeeding term of court, regular or special, following the term at which such indictment was found defective or insufficient.'

A draft of a bill to effectuate this purpose, prepared in this Department, is enclosed herewith.

With kind regards,
Sincerely,

ROBERT H. JACKSON,
Acting Attorney General

The committee amendment proposes to strike out the words "regular or special" and insert "regular" after "next succeeding." The effect of this amendment would be to limit the time to the next definite term (which would be the regular term) and so eliminate any doubt as to when the time for reindictment might expire, thus giving all parties a definite time in which to anticipate or prepare to defend against any new indictment found under the terms of the law.

О

[blocks in formation]

JUNE 10 (legislative day, MAY 28), 1940.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. McNARY, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2758]

The Committee on Indian Affairs to whom was referred the bill (S. 2758) providing for the refund of $354.68 to Wade Crawford, former superintendent of the Klamath Indian Reservation, Oreg., having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass with the following amendments:

On page 1, line 4, strike out the words "in the".

On page 1, line 5, strike out the words "accounts of" and change the word "as" to "former".

On page 1, line 7, after the second comma insert the following "and in the accounts of G. F. Allen, Chief Disbursing Officer," and strike out the figures "386".

On page 1, strike out all of lines 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "20-19776, April 1936; and voucher 20-43306, April 1937."

Add a new section as follows:

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to refund to Wade Crawford, the sum of $354.68, said refund to be made from the appropriations credited with such sum as a result of the application of moneys held to the credit of said Wade Crawford in the retirement fund to satisfy disallowances made by the General Accounting Office.

The enactment of this bill, amended as proposed herein is recommended by the Secretary of the Interior.

After receipt of this bill by your committee, it was referred to the Secretary of the Interior for further consideration and report, and thereafter on November 20, 1939, he submitted his report recommending that the bill receive favorable consideration.

A full explanation of the purpose of this proposed legislation is contained in the said report of the Secretary of the Interior, dated November 20, 1939, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this report, as follows:

« AnteriorContinuar »